8mm to the Left: If Hitler Died in 1923

[Lascaris]

If it helps, Turkey won't be gaining Hatay from France, and I figure that this triggers a slow movement towards frustration with the Great Powers for not recognising or supporting any of Turkey's claims. Add that to a potentially different resolution to the Straits, less willing to recognise Turkish sovereignty...

One thing for consideration is that Turkey of the era may have elections and call itself a republic but is a single party state. OTL this was altered after 1945 to a large degree because the country had to cater to western, particularly US influence, and move to an actual multi-party system. Which in turn led to the 1960 coup when it looked to the old elite that things were getting too much out of control. TTL do you have anything of the short? Or Turkey continues as a Kemalist one party state? One notes Ismet Inonu, assuming he is the one to succeed Kemal TTL lived to the early 1970s... which depending on the mood of Inonu and Stalin, may or may not fit to an authoritarian Turkey friendly to the Soviet Union. After all throughout the 1920s and 1930s Turkey was pretty friendly to the Soviets and vice versa. Soviet military and economic aid had been instrumental during the Greco-Turkish war in 1919-22. And the good relations continued into the 1930s with the Soviets exporting artillery, tanks and even donating a handful of aircraft.

 

[gradje]

Controversy

Am I the only one who thinks the British Empire is overrated? They were only so dominant in the 19th century because France, their great rival, stagnated demographically. If France were still the demographic monster of the time of Louis XIV, the Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars, I doubt the British would have had as much free rein over the world.

In fact, when more populous nations like Germany, the USA and the USSR industrialized, they left the British in the dust in total industrial production.

I actually think the British Empire is underrated. Culture is generally filled with anti-British/English sentiment and plastic paddyism, the UK itself also a lot. A country doesn't rise to the top like that without a fair degree of competence. Ofcourse, geographic factors play into that, island nation and all, but you still need to play with advantages like that. And the UK did it very well. The British Empire was a ruthlessly pragmatic (when it needed to be) and innovative entity. A lot of the wealth we have today is down to the West European powers laying down world spanning trade networks and the infrastructure needed to maintain it.

And here I am saying this whilst completely agreeing with Abraham Kuyper: "The spite against Perfidious Albion is nowhere more deeply rooted in the national spirit than in the Netherlands."

like Belgium today

The last time a Belgian monarch had a opinion on anything he was declared unfit to rule.

After all saying "We stopped slavery first," rather involved admitting we'd spent a century doing it before hand, just as an example.

This is such a weak argument. Slavery has been a part of humanity since forever basically. And from what I've seen it's initial introduction would have even been a moral innovation. Because the enslavement of a vanquished people is better than the alternative of killing the lot that existed before. Any argument that uses transatlantic slavery is generally nothing more than a stick to beat the collective West with. A West which itself suffered under the enslaving tendencies of outside groups. Slavery is a moral wrong which is sadly still practiced today, but its reduction since 1800 certainly has to be attributed to the "moralizing attitude of the West" in regards to the matter.

A point which I am still working out is the possibility of a Greco-Turkish War in the mid-to-late 40's, perhaps based on a Cyprus crisis. If it happens, this will get much more interesting, but I am as of yet unsure of the realistic possibility of this without a massively decaying British Empire

I think you hit the nail on the head here. Britain is going to hold on to Cyprus for as long as their influence in the Middle East will and has to last. The 40'ies simply are to early for a Second Greco-Turkish War to start over it, especially with Britain not having to deal with the expeses of WW2. I don't know what Italy is going to do, you said they'll get out of fascism with more territory, but maybe Rhodes and the Dodecanese is a better target for such a war.

One thing for consideration is that Turkey of the era may have elections and call itself a republic but is a single party state. OTL this was altered after 1945 to a large degree because the country had to cater to western, particularly US influence, and move to an actual multi-party system. Which in turn led to the 1960 coup when it looked to the old elite that things were getting too much out of control. TTL do you have anything of the short? Or Turkey continues as a Kemalist one party state? One notes Ismet Inonu, assuming he is the one to succeed Kemal TTL lived to the early 1970s... which depending on the mood of Inonu and Stalin, may or may not fit to an authoritarian Turkey friendly to the Soviet Union. After all throughout the 1920s and 1930s Turkey was pretty friendly to the Soviets and vice versa. Soviet military and economic aid had been instrumental during the Greco-Turkish war in 1919-22. And the good relations continued into the 1930s with the Soviets exporting artillery, tanks and even donating a handful of aircraft.

Don't forget the upcoming Soviet-German War. In general, more authoritarian systems are legitimized by Germany handling things much better than the lot who controlled Berlin IRL, so Turkey remaining a one party democracy beyond 1945 seems likely to me. If they're able to count on the Soviets for aid is a second question and less likely IMO. And British willingness to deal with Berlin may make Von Lettow-Vorbeck or his succesor think twice before supporting Turkey and throwing goodwill with London out of the window

 

[Leonidas]

This is such a weak argument. Slavery has been a part of humanity since forever basically. And from what I've seen it's initial introduction would have even been a moral innovation. Because the enslavement of a vanquished people is better than the alternative of killing the lot that existed before.

???

Any argument that uses transatlantic slavery is generally nothing more than a stick to beat the collective West with. A West which itself suffered under the enslaving tendencies of outside groups. Slavery is a moral wrong which is sadly still practiced today, but its reduction since 1800 certainly has to be attributed to the "moralizing attitude of the West" in regards to the matter.

You seem to be missing the point that expanding a system and profiting from it, then deciding later on that it’s bad is kind of the bare minimum morally speaking.

 

[gradje]

You seem to be missing the point that expanding a system and profiting from it, then deciding later on that it’s bad is kind of the bare minimum morally speaking.

Which is still better than the alternative, profiting off of it and then having the Royal Navy force you to quit it.

 

[HKY]

8mm to the Left: A World Without Hitler​

Even with the rapidly-growing military and domestic police force, Germany would have no chance against a combined Polish-Czech-Italian attack.

Since you mentioned military build-up , how much Germany actually spends for military ?
In OTL German military spending before WW2
1935: 8%
1936: 13%
1937: 13%
1938: 17%
1939: 23%

 

[KaiserKatze]

Since you mentioned military build-up , how much Germany actually spends for military ?
In OTL German military spending before WW2
1935: 8%
1936: 13%
1937: 13%
1938: 17%
1939: 23%

I don't actually have any hard and fast numbers, but from my personal, non-economist evaluations I'd say probably say that, by 1936, this Germany is spending around or just under 10% on their military. This number was higher during the initial buildup, and would be higher if you included the Reichspolizei, but this Germany isn't as focused on putting all the eggs in one basket.

 

[Garrison]

@KaiserKatze ! amazing chapter! Hope that Edward stays on the throne! would make for a rather interesting british Empire!

He has little chance of surviving. The monarch not interfering in politics is more than a convention. it's a cornerstone of the British constitution.

 

[JamesHunter]

I don't actually have any hard and fast numbers, but from my personal, non-economist evaluations I'd say probably say that, by 1936, this Germany is spending around or just under 10% on their military. This number was higher during the initial buildup, and would be higher if you included the Reichspolizei, but this Germany isn't as focused on putting all the eggs in one basket.

Makes sense. I mean there is the need to regenerate the military and there is insanity. Unlike one ball L-V is sane and so he will spend what is needed to restore Germany's ability to defend itself and deal with the lesser opponents in Eastern Europe but not at the expense of overheating the economy as happened OTL (because L-V isn't dumb enough to count on stealing other peoples money).

He has little chance of surviving. The monarch not interfering in politics is more than a convention. it's a cornerstone of the British constitution.

Since 1688, and given George V said in OTL that "When I am gone he will ruin himself in a year," I'd be shocked if some planning for what did happen started even before Eddie got the throne.

 

[Garrison]

Makes sense. I mean there is the need to regenerate the military and there is insanity. Unlike one ball L-V is sane and so he will spend what is needed to restore Germany's ability to defend itself and deal with the lesser opponents in Eastern Europe but not at the expense of overheating the economy as happened OTL (because L-V isn't dumb enough to count on stealing other peoples money).


Since 1688, and given George V said in OTL that "When I am gone he will ruin himself in a year," I'd be shocked if some planning for what did happen started even before Eddie got the throne.

It would take a miracle for Edward VIII to survive, especially as if the establishment turns on him his popularity won't last. His sympathy for the ordinary working folk is skin deep at best and Wallis is going to be a PR disaster.

 

[JamesHunter]

It would take a miracle for Edward VIII to survive, especially as if the establishment turns on him his popularity won't last. His sympathy for the ordinary working folk is skin deep at best and Wallis is going to be a PR disaster.

Exactly, he was popular because people didn't actually know him and because he was seen as a bit of a front soldier (due to touring the trenches ) and so had some popularity with veterans.

Then they actually got to know him and realised he was a masochistic a-hole with fascist views and controlled by his highly unpleasant mistress...

The irony bring that George VI genuinely was a frontline war hero (on the Collingwood at Jutland) who quickly proved to be everything that Eddie never was and had a wife (who beyond the drinking and meddling with her descendants love lives) was a wonderful woman.

Needless to say it would have been better if he'd married Simpson and given up his rights before his father died...

 

[1962strat]

I don't actually have any hard and fast numbers, but from my personal, non-economist evaluations I'd say probably say that, by 1936, this Germany is spending around or just under 10% on their military. This number was higher during the initial buildup, and would be higher if you included the Reichspolizei, but this Germany isn't as focused on putting all the eggs in one basket.

This is completely mad for a country that is trying to recover from an economic catastrophe. The Nazi numbers shouldn’t be taken as a guide, given how reckless their economic policies were.

 

[CalBear]

I actually think the British Empire is underrated. Culture is generally filled with anti-British/English sentiment and plastic paddyism, the UK itself also a lot. A country doesn't rise to the top like that without a fair degree of competence. Ofcourse, geographic factors play into that, island nation and all, but you still need to play with advantages like that. And the UK did it very well. The British Empire was a ruthlessly pragmatic (when it needed to be) and innovative entity. A lot of the wealth we have today is down to the West European powers laying down world spanning trade networks and the infrastructure needed to maintain it.

And here I am saying this whilst completely agreeing with Abraham Kuyper: "The spite against Perfidious Albion is nowhere more deeply rooted in the national spirit than in the Netherlands."

The last time a Belgian monarch had a opinion on anything he was declared unfit to rule.

This is such a weak argument. Slavery has been a part of humanity since forever basically. And from what I've seen it's initial introduction would have even been a moral innovation. Because the enslavement of a vanquished people is better than the alternative of killing the lot that existed before. Any argument that uses transatlantic slavery is generally nothing more than a stick to beat the collective West with. A West which itself suffered under the enslaving tendencies of outside groups. Slavery is a moral wrong which is sadly still practiced today, but its reduction since 1800 certainly has to be attributed to the "moralizing attitude of the West" in regards to the matter.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. Britain is going to hold on to Cyprus for as long as their influence in the Middle East will and has to last. The 40'ies simply are to early for a Second Greco-Turkish War to start over it, especially with Britain not having to deal with the expeses of WW2. I don't know what Italy is going to do, you said they'll get out of fascism with more territory, but maybe Rhodes and the Dodecanese is a better target for such a war.

Don't forget the upcoming Soviet-German War. In general, more authoritarian systems are legitimized by Germany handling things much better than the lot who controlled Berlin IRL, so Turkey remaining a one party democracy beyond 1945 seems likely to me. If they're able to count on the Soviets for aid is a second question and less likely IMO. And British willingness to deal with Berlin may make Von Lettow-Vorbeck or his succesor think twice before supporting Turkey and throwing goodwill with London out of the window

You REALLY need to clarify your comments here, in detail.

You have four hours after your next login to reply. If no reply is made it will be assumed that you want the current comments to stand.

 

[pls don't ban me]

You REALLY need to clarify your comments here, in detail.

You have four hours after your next login to reply. If no reply is made it will be assumed that you want the current comments to stand.

Hey Cal, can you give him more time? maybe he is from a different time zone and currently sleeping

 

[CalBear]

Hey Cal, can you give him more time? maybe he is from a different time zone and currently sleeping

Time zone doesn't matter. It is four hours after the Member logs on, regardless of when that is.

 

[gradje]

You REALLY need to clarify your comments here, in detail.

You have four hours after your next login to reply. If no reply is made it will be assumed that you want the current comments to stand.

Slavery is a moral wrong. And sadly it is a moral wrong that's rather constant throughout the whole history of mankind. That can be as a part of Triangle Trade in the plantations of the America's, Barbary raids on Europe's coast to capture oarsmen, the Indian Ocean slave trade or slavery in Korea. And then there's also "slavery adjacent" cases like serfdom which continued long into the 19th century in Eastern Europe. It's a coalecion of circumstances; technological innovation, innovation in economic thought and moral innovation from both the Enlightenment and Christian moralism that allowed for first the push to abolish the slave trade and then the practice itself. And these factors concentrated themselves enough in the Britain of the late 18th and early 19th century. A whole lot of devellopments in the history of man can be described as a coalecion of circumstances like this, but we do not not assign the credit where it is due in those cases. The economic incentive was ofcourse selfish as well, a free man is more productive thus his boss can earn more. But as the man is now free, earns a wage and is master of his own fate, it's a situation in which everybody gains something. Nothing of what I said should be taken as gloating, it's a sad subject after all, but some credit where credit is due.

As for my statements on the British Empire earlier in the post, I have recently been on a bit of a Old Brittania and Jackie Fisher roll on youtube. Fascinating subject. Drachinifel as well. My statement by quoting Kuyper is in regards to English/British strategy towards the Netherlands and especially Antwerp, as the one point from where an untouchable invasion of the island could be launched. Britain is forced to act on the continent when a (potential) hegemon takes controll of Antwerp and the Scheldt, a loaded barrel aimed straight at the heart of its Empire, London.

Edit: completely forgot about StrategyStuff's video on Julian Corbett (friend and ally of Fisher) as well.

My excuses if that was a bit rambly, but I hope it is sufficient

 

[KaiserKatze]

This is completely mad for a country that is trying to recover from an economic catastrophe. The Nazi numbers shouldn’t be taken as a guide, given how reckless their economic policies were.

Like I said, I'm not an economist, so I can't give anything super concrete.

They are putting in more than they should, but not as much as the Nazis did. And it is still on the expensive side because they are rebuilding a largely dismantled army rather than simply maintaining a preexisting one.

 

[Garrison]

Like I said, I'm not an economist, so I can't give anything super concrete.

They are putting in more than they should, but not as much as the Nazis did. And it is still on the expensive side because they are rebuilding a largely dismantled army rather than simply maintaining a preexisting one.

Well based on OTL figures from 'The Wages of Destruction' the British and French were spending about 5% of GDP on rearmament by 1938-39 while Nazi Germany was spending about 20%, and practically bankrupting themselves doing so, not to mention using expedients like MEFO bills, export subsidies and then later wholesale looting to keep the economy afloat. I would say anything more than 5-7% is probably going see Germany struggling, not to mention raise some serious questions in London and Paris about reparation payments. IOTL 1936 Neville Chamberlain of all people was advocating 'strong action' against Germany because of their economic policies.

 

[Kurd Gossemer]

I actually think the British Empire is underrated.

Underrated? On this site? The same site where for a good chunk of time there were a lot of British Empire doing better TLs?(even if thankfully those have lessened more and more since the last few years) The same site where people in the clichés discussion talked about how overrated and overused British TLs are? I think you're talking about some sort of mirror dimension of AH here because the British Empire were never "Underrated" here.

This is such a weak argument. Slavery has been a part of humanity since forever basically. And from what I've seen it's initial introduction would have even been a moral innovation. Because the enslavement of a vanquished people is better than the alternative of killing the lot that existed before. Any argument that uses transatlantic slavery is generally nothing more than a stick to beat the collective West with. A West which itself suffered under the enslaving tendencies of outside groups. Slavery is a moral wrong which is sadly still practiced today, but its reduction since 1800 certainly has to be attributed to the "moralizing attitude of the West" in regards to the matter.

There's actually so much wrong with this section it's amazing really. The effects of the Transatlantic Slave trade are still felt to this day such as systematic racism, not to mention how it would eventually fed into colonialism in Africa and all that it entailed, trying to make this very idiotic argument of "well we were enslaved too!" fails at so many levels that I don't even want to bother tearing it to shreds, it's own existence already invalidates it.

 

[lusitano 1996]

Slavery is a moral wrong. And sadly it is a moral wrong that's rather constant throughout the whole history of mankind. That can be as a part of Triangle Trade in the plantations of the America's, Barbary raids on Europe's coast to capture oarsmen, the Indian Ocean slave trade or slavery in Korea. And then there's also "slavery adjacent" cases like serfdom which continued long into the 19th century in Eastern Europe. It's a coalecion of circumstances; technological innovation, innovation in economic thought and moral innovation from both the Enlightenment and Christian moralism that allowed for first the push to abolish the slave trade and then the practice itself. And these factors concentrated themselves enough in the Britain of the late 18th and early 19th century. A whole lot of devellopments in the history of man can be described as a coalecion of circumstances like this, but we do not not assign the credit where it is due in those cases. The economic incentive was ofcourse selfish as well, a free man is more productive thus his boss can earn more. But as the man is now free, earns a wage and is master of his own fate, it's a situation in which everybody gains something. Nothing of what I said should be taken as gloating, it's a sad subject after all, but some credit where credit is due.

As for my statements on the British Empire earlier in the post, I have recently been on a bit of a Old Brittania and Jackie Fisher roll on youtube. Fascinating subject. Drachinifel as well. My statement by quoting Kuyper is in regards to English/British strategy towards the Netherlands and especially Antwerp, as the one point from where an untouchable invasion of the island could be launched. Britain is forced to act on the continent when a (potential) hegemon takes controll of Antwerp and the Scheldt, a loaded barrel aimed straight at the heart of its Empire, London.

Edit: completely forgot about StrategyStuff's video on Julian Corbett (friend and ally of Fisher) as well.

My excuses if that was a bit rambly, but I hope it is sufficient

Your original comment seemed very reasonable to me , this one is even more .

 

[CalBear]

Slavery is a moral wrong. And sadly it is a moral wrong that's rather constant throughout the whole history of mankind. That can be as a part of Triangle Trade in the plantations of the America's, Barbary raids on Europe's coast to capture oarsmen, the Indian Ocean slave trade or slavery in Korea. And then there's also "slavery adjacent" cases like serfdom which continued long into the 19th century in Eastern Europe. It's a coalecion of circumstances; technological innovation, innovation in economic thought and moral innovation from both the Enlightenment and Christian moralism that allowed for first the push to abolish the slave trade and then the practice itself. And these factors concentrated themselves enough in the Britain of the late 18th and early 19th century. A whole lot of devellopments in the history of man can be described as a coalecion of circumstances like this, but we do not not assign the credit where it is due in those cases. The economic incentive was ofcourse selfish as well, a free man is more productive thus his boss can earn more. But as the man is now free, earns a wage and is master of his own fate, it's a situation in which everybody gains something. Nothing of what I said should be taken as gloating, it's a sad subject after all, but some credit where credit is due.

As for my statements on the British Empire earlier in the post, I have recently been on a bit of a Old Brittania and Jackie Fisher roll on youtube. Fascinating subject. Drachinifel as well. My statement by quoting Kuyper is in regards to English/British strategy towards the Netherlands and especially Antwerp, as the one point from where an untouchable invasion of the island could be launched. Britain is forced to act on the continent when a (potential) hegemon takes controll of Antwerp and the Scheldt, a loaded barrel aimed straight at the heart of its Empire, London.

Edit: completely forgot about StrategyStuff's video on Julian Corbett (friend and ally of Fisher) as well.

My excuses if that was a bit rambly, but I hope it is sufficient

Thank you for the clarification.